*Originally published in 2025 and preserved as part of our archive project.Get E-International Relations delivered directly to your inbox, free of charge. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber to support our work.

Since the early 2000s, the Chinese government has systematically expanded its cultural diplomacy as part of a broader effort to reshape international perceptions and reduce what it sees as a “China threat” narrative (d’Hooghe 2015). One of the most emblematic tools in this strategy has been the creation and dissemination of Confucius Institutes (CIs), which operate in cooperation with local universities and institutions worldwide. Administered by the Center for Language Education and Cooperation (CLEC), formerly Hanban, these institutes aim to promote Chinese language and culture, support research on China, and foster mutual understanding. According to Nye (2004), soft power is the ability to attract and co-opt rather than coerce. It is based on the appeal of a country’s culture, political values, and foreign policy. In this framework, Confucius Institutes function not merely as educational centers but also as instruments of symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1991), helping China to project a positive image and to cultivate long-term relationships with foreign academic and political elites.

Scholars have debated the degree to which Confucius Institutes can be considered autonomous educational platforms or extensions of Chinese state influence. Some view them as benign actors in global cultural exchange (Zhao and Huang 2010), while others raise concerns about issues of transparency, academic freedom, and alignment with the Chinese Communist Party’s ideological priorities (Brady 2012; Peterson 2017). Nevertheless, the real impact of CIs cannot be fully assessed without considering the local institutional contexts in which they operate. As Rawnsley and Rawnsley (2016) argue, soft power is always mediated by the receiving society’s structures, values, and historical narratives. It is within this relational and negotiated space that the Argentine case becomes particularly illustrative.

Argentina has a long-standing tradition of university autonomy, rooted in the 1918 Córdoba Reform, which established a model of self-governance that spread across Latin America. Public universities in Argentina are legally autonomous from the central government, and this principle is not only symbolic but institutionally protected. University senates, elected by professors, students, and staff, hold significant authority in defining educational, political, and even international cooperation policies (Buchbinder 2005). This culture of autonomy implies that any foreign initiative—especially one involving language and cultural promotion linked to a foreign government—is subject to scrutiny within academic institutions. While Argentina maintains a cooperative relationship with China, and has signed various agreements within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative, university actors........

© E-International